Hello and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Recent Comments
Who is Online
46 user(s) are online (29 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 1
Guests: 45

John, more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Huffstutler)




Re: ZIL manufacturer
#1
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
What did the plant look like before demolition?

Posted on: 2016/9/18 14:45
 Top 


Re: 1932 Eight Brochure Help
#2
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
Yes, I am looking for a high res scan of just the chassis photo in the brochure.

Thanks.

Posted on: 2015/12/12 18:08
 Top 


1932 Eight Brochure Help
#3
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
I am hoping someone here has copy of the 1932 standard 8 prestige brochure that has the attached page to help with a good scan of the chassis top view? Thanks.

Attach file:



jpg  (40.15 KB)
2957_566c8170d5f03.jpg 1000X463 px

Posted on: 2015/12/12 14:20
 Top 


Re: Can old brands be revived?
#4
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
The PT Cruiser was an exception since it started the retro craze and had a fan base but ran its course. It was introduced in 2000 and ended in 2010 with only 5,000+ cars sold that year.

The MINI and VW and Fiat 500 have been around for decades and have fan bases even if there were some hiatus.

Mustang... is getting old and tiresome to look at. It was great when introduced in 2005 but the novelty wore off quick. By the way, the Ford Probe (1989-1997) of was supposed to be the design replacement for the Mustang but fans screamed bloody murder so they made Probe a separate model.

Camero. This is the only exciting looking car of the bunch. It has a raw and yet sleek edge to it. But it was only gone as a brand between 2002-2010.

The bottom line is yes, there are some who will purchase these retros. Will they in today's market of uncertain value depreciation, possibly not. People tend to gravitate to cars that will sell to a general public quicker even as used cars. This also means more cookie cutter models.

And besides, ask a person born within the past 40 years what a Packard is and they will most likely point you to a computer!

Wanted to also add that the above cars such as the Mustang, falls in that lackluster list of "individuality" lacking vehicles. You really can't tell which year is which in the past 5-years.

Posted on: 2011/12/1 13:09
 Top 


Re: Can old brands be revived?
#5
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
When I say

Quote:
in today's society, people could care less about "individuality" or things old school as in years past.


I am referring to the cookie cutter SUV's and what few remaining automobiles that are mostly foreign rather than American made and hard to tell apart. There isn't any "individuality" as with the cars of the 1950s-1960s where all you had to do is look and can tell if it was a Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, Ford, Mercury, Rambler, Studebaker, etc... and what year from it's trim or lights. The Ford LTD that used the same body for 10 years started the demise of style changes.

As far as "old school" you are right, we are a niche but when you spend millions or billions on tooling, labor, and marketing... you want to appeal to the masses. Today's buyers in the age group under 30 have zero interest in things "old". I know... I have seen it in almost every area of sales from what brides register to home floor layouts, to movies, even cars. Old traditional values that our parents and grandparents and their parents on back believed in do not fit into today's society no fuss low maintainance lifestyle.

Eric

Posted on: 2011/12/1 8:31
 Top 


Re: Can old brands be revived?
#6
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher

Posted on: 2011/11/29 12:54
 Top 


Re: 1931 Packard FWD
#7
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
Just wanted to add that the X frame connections are not by chance, or at least I don't think so. There were some of the same people who designed the Packard FWD prototype that also designed the Cord L-29 it was supposed to compete with.

There was a reason behind the Cord's X frame design and is part of Automotive history (though I may have even disproved that claim of fame recently) and wondered about the background with the Cord design connections as well as the variances mentioned above.

Eric

Posted on: 2011/11/10 12:49
 Top 


Re: 1931 Packard FWD
#8
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
Quote:

Owen_Dyneto wrote:
I really couldn't make out much from the photos either. But being a one-off prototype I suppose you could expect almost anything although it was built to be a driving prototype and not an engineering prototype.

What might help understand the situation is knowning more about the timing of events. On what date did Packard abandon the front-drive plan, and on what date was engineering completed for the Twin Six? I believe both these dates are known from Packard board meeting minutes, though I don't have them handy. I've always thought the time span was very short so to find a frame design in the Twin Six that was replaced a year later with a revised (improved?) design wouldn't be all that surprising.

I sort of question your comment that the 903-906 was supposed to be a front-drive car. I had assumed that, had the front-drive come to fruition, it would have been the low-end car line, not the top-end. Just an assumption.

You seem really keen on this topic - perhaps reviewing the Packard board meeting minutes of this era would be worthwhile to you.


I know that at least the Twin Six models were going to be FWD cars.

And that when it came to show time when the FWD project was scrapped, the RWD prototype was rushed and came up with a completely different frame that looks more like the low end Eight cars of 1932. The high end Super 8 and Twin Six had a different chassis so there were two chassis production styles for 1932 and only one for 1933. Part of the puzzle was why the short lived smaller X design of the high end 1932 cars? At first I thought it was initially designed for the FWD cars but not used and altered for the RWD design but after seeing the prototype, they don't match at all. Yet, there could still be a connection between the 903-906 frame and the FWD going into proposed production?

I am not a club member so don't have access to minutes so any help would be appreciated.

Eric

Posted on: 2011/11/10 11:49
 Top 


Re: 1931 Packard FWD
#9
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
Quote:

cli55er wrote:
well for one thing i have no idea what i am looking at, so i have nothing to say.

Hank


Hank, what you are looking at is the frame of the only built front wheel drive Packard which also still exists. It is a 1931 model and Packard was going to build FWD cars to compete with the Cord L-29 but it never got off the ground.

The questions are about the X member of the frame design and history behind it being unique to this car as opposed to production Packard's of 1932 onward that started using the X brace? And also why the 1932 903-906 had its own unique X design for only one year since it was supposed to be this FWD car?

Eric

Posted on: 2011/11/10 8:24
 Top 


Re: 1931 Packard FWD
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away

James Butcher
Quote:

Owen_Dyneto wrote:
I think several of us would enjoy seeing the pictures. Perhaps they will provoke some comment.


Hmmm... people aren't exactly crashing the servers posting follow ups to this post???

Posted on: 2011/11/10 7:55
 Top 



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 6 »



Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
'57 Detroit Packards Watercolor
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2021, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved